An article titled “Horrible bosses, and how to deal with them”:
It makes no sense to let a perpetually difficult situation fester. Rather than sweeping your feelings and concerns under the rug, you need to approach your supervisor and work to build a more productive relationship. Confronting your boss may cause some trepidation and fear about putting your job in jeopardy, but in the long run, it will be better to lay your cards on the table and try to resolve the troubling relationship. Every relationship is a two-way street, and the fact is that unless supervisors receive some feedback, they won’t realize the effect they are having on you or your colleagues. …
Once you’ve considered your supervisor’s perspective, schedule time for an honest, direct and positive conversation. Let your manager know that you sometimes find work frustrating, and you would like to better meet and exceed his expectations. By staying calm and professional while also avoiding blaming your boss, you’ll discover new ways of working together. Be prepared to leave if necessary. (more)
My professional therapist wife thinks this is bad advice and so do I. Maybe if a boss seemed ok overall but unaware that something they did really bugged you, then maybe you might gently and privately point that out. But if you’d call a boss “horrible,” then probably he’s well aware about what you don’t like, or he will punish you for seeming to challenge his authority.
But notice how supporting this advice lets one affirm many ideals:
We “stand up” to and resist dominators, and will support others who try.
It is not our lowered status we object to, oh no, we have objective reasons to complain.
When a boss and employee conflict, the boss not the employee is usually to blame.
We don’t secretly trash talk people we don’t like, no, we act in full view of all.
We are reasonable, and reasonable people sit down and talk about their problems.
We assume everyone is reasonable until they clearly prove otherwise.
We often give and consume advice more to affirm our ideals than to usefully improve decisions.
Looking at the comments that were made since I posted, I must agree with Samantha Atkins, Karim, and Buck Farmer. The article in question gave what was at the very least reasonable advice and was probably the best advice that could be given under the circumstances.
More to the point it indicates a potential problem. I've enjoyed it Robin Hanson’s exposure of hypocrisy, but constantly looking for underlying motives can lead one to forget that sometimes” a cigar is just a cigar”, i.e., the purported reasons that someone is doing something may in fact be their real reasons . If one is constantly looking for secret motives, it would probably be wise to employ a form of Occam’s razor to the behavior of other people; assume that their stated motive is their true motive unless it is clearly not. (Most people would probably be wise to make the opposite assumption.)
Second, something may not be objectively true, but still be very good operational advice. Take the sixth point in the posting: “We assume everyone is reasonable until they clearly prove otherwise.” Assuming everyone is reasonable is way too optimistic, but making that assumption is probably the best way to deal with people in 21st-century America. How much clarity should be required before discarding the assumption is a matter of judgment.
Agreed. This like most human interactions has to be an emotional play.
Another tactic I find works well if you're fairly new to your career is trying to trigger your boss's sense of magnanimity by asking for help. The point being to reaffirm your vertical relationship and take advantage of human instinctive or culturally inculcated habits for superiors to look after inferiors who are not challenging the hierarchy and are in need of help.